I think that leads to stagnation and ignores what Trek has done in terms of variety of tone and thin allegory. But to each their own.
I guess the fandom has become Balkanized to the point a common point of reference in the present is no longer possible, only from the past.
If that was truly the case, why was Enterprise cancelled? It's first two seasons were mostly the same old, same old, and its viewership never recovered. Picard Season 3 was nothing like any season from the Berman era from 1987-2002. It was maybe closer to Enterprise Seasons 3 and 4 from 2003-2005, during which time Season 3 operated like "24" in space, and Manny Coto's Season 4 had multi-episode arcs.
UPN is to blame for the stagnation of VGR and ENT. Yes, Berman and Braga could have tried to push back more. But then they could have easily been replaced by people that took all the notes, and not just some of them.
Meanwhile, CBR just
put out an article yesterday blaming UPN and Les Moonves for the cancelation of ENT.
The final season of Picard was a celebration of all eras of Star Trek, including the show that ended it last time. The fourth series from Rick Berman and co-created by Brannon Braga has the dubious distinction of being the only second-wave era series to not make it to seven seasons. Yet, Star Trek: Enterprise was not a failure. United Paramount Network (UPN) was, and it sunk the show. Berman and Braga both say "franchise fatigue" played a role in the show's lukewarm reception, and they make a fair argument.
I'll agree that managing Patrick Stewart seems to be skill itself, but the storytelling itself was very safe to me, compared to the first two season's efforts to try to expand the lore. It's just unfortunate that S1 and S2 are just bad... from Romulan incest twins or creepy Soongs.
I vastly prefer SNW to Picard S3 so for me there's nothing to fix. lol
Maybe it's because I'm not a huge TOS fan, but the way it worked in the Gorn and Balance of Terror felt a lot more natural to me than how Picard S3 worked in its TNG references.
I think PS3 was trying to correct for INS, NEM, and the first two seasons. But yeah, I can't let go of TOS being canon and the load bearing pillar that establishes the shared universe of the franchise. No matter what you do, trying to "fix it" (which is incredibly presentist, tries to inject "current day" into something that has already proven it will be as timeless as anything over 50 years old can be, and will itself likely date far more quickly than the original source material only causes more problems than it "solves".
It also alienated a lot of newer fans who came to Trek through Picard S1/S2, SNW, and Discovery. Their voices and issues are important here also since they're the ones who have been supporting Trek in recent years while so many disgruntled fans complained and didn't watch.
I think this is the reason SFA is being made. They don't want to lose the new viewers, and the market research probably shows appealing to both groups might not work in a single show. Maybe lower budgets will turn out to give both groups what they want, and with less executive interference resulting from the vast sums of money on the line.
I love SNWs but for some folks the crew comes off too unprofessional, like too arguementive with the Captain, Uhuras too awestruck sometimes, Pike & Una too lentient with insuboratination, etc..., these are all Starfleet graduates after all.
This is one of the main reasons why I actually find DISCOVERY season 1 to be superior to SNW S1.
I think alot of folks who liked Discovery, SNWs, and Picard S1&2, loved S3 of Picard too, but I think the great divide between those who hate alot of Nutrek and those that hate season 3 of Picard is a fight between decontructionists and star trek traditionalists, but also between cultural elitists and populists in a broader context.
As well as modernists vs postmodernists.
And treating populist as if its a bad thing in its own right is a sad thing, as if its a terrible crime to appeal to the wants & needs of the general public instead of elites who think they are better then everyone else,how dare Terry appeal to the working class!
Again, I'd argue ST09 was populist because it intentionally oversampled the "general audience" demographic, while PS3 was "democratic" in that it sought to appeal to a supermajority of the legacy fanbase. But yeah there I am gatekeeping again, because it's only the other side that gatekeeps!
STP season 3 on the other hand handles things perfectly close IMHO. Buts more creatively risky then it gets credit for, because most of that goes into setting up Star Trek Legacy.
The secret Picard/Crusher child plot is a massive risk in and of itself.
As far as Strange New Worlds and continuity, one thing that should be noted about Strange New Worlds season 2 is that it's crossing over with Lower Decks, a show that's deeply rooted in TNG. Also, just look at the trailer for season 2. The Klingons aren't either the season 1 or season 2 version of the fishhead Discovery Klingons.
Yeah, I'm kinda dreading that one. I wonder what they'll use, if not the multiverse with all the TOS visual continuity already established in that show.
Beyond that, I have no problem with the idea of different series going in different directions stylistically, even ones I disagree with. But if we get into a situation, which we seem to be entering given Paramount's financial position, where what comes next in Star Trek is about either/or choices where only a limited amount of series get made, then people are going to argue about which of those choices is best.
The zero sum game.
If people want to claim the direction of a Legacy series will lead to a stagnant Star Trek, then it's only fair to consider the other side of that argument. First of all, I would argue there's already been stagnancy in having multiple Star Trek shows and movies reinterpret the 23rd century over and over and over again. And while I truly enjoy and like Strange New Worlds, the one issue I have with the concept of the series is that we're stuck in a prequel where we're boxed in as far as knowing where it's all going, and the fates of most of the characters. In some ways, I wish we could have had these actors and the creative team doing a 25th century show that built on the universe and propelled the Star Trek universe forward.
Fair point.
Moreover, if the arguments are about alienating fans and appealing to viewers, I think it's folly to pander in the search for new viewers, or programming to a niche demo with something like Starfleet Academy, if that decision is made over what a large portion of your fandom has shown they are excited about, like, and want to see more of in Star Trek after season 3 of Picard. None of the first five series of Star Trek were developed or produced in that way. None of them were created with the intent of being the Star Trek for the teen demo. TNG became a great television series, and then both adults and children watched.
Four quadrant (appealing to a broad audience) worked for decades, and in an era of budget's tightening, spending $10 million an episode that already structurally alienates a wide portion of your existing fanbase either needs to quickly add replacement viewers or go broader to be more sustainable.
Please enjoy the leftovers. Please don't tell me Trek is about strange or new or cultural boundary pushing. It is popcorn populist entertainment.
If that's what is desired then have at it. But don't lie to me.
Perhaps to you it is a storytelling format where past continuity only matters inasmuch as it serves the current story, while for others it is the shared universe of history plus timelessness that brings them in. And only a Star Trek show can use the past Star Trek lore legally, but something "strange or new or cultural boundary pushing" could be any new genre series.
